May 22, 2010

Wrigleyville project is no mall invasion; foes' worst fears are unfounded, but planned complex across from Wrigley Field still needs tweaks

Thousands of people are getting all steamed up about a controversial plan for an eight-story hotel, apartment and retail complex across the street from Wrigley Field. On Facebook, a group called “People Against the ‘Malling of Wrigleyville’ “ is sounding the alarm, as if big-box retailers and a mall named “Cubby World” were about to set up shop at the corner of Clark and Addison, right across the street from the Friendly Confines.

Here’s some friendly advice for these folks, whose numbers as of Friday morning had grown to more than 10,000: Chill!

In reality, the proposed development, which is called Addison Park on Clark, has few attributes of car-oriented suburbia. It is not — repeat, not — a mall. The real issue is what sort of urban character is heading Wrigleyville’s way. Will the design respect the neighborhood’s edgy vitality? Or will it give us something like the banal Chicago of the North Bridge retail district, where one beige-colored, concrete-faced monstrosity lines up against another.

The $100 million proposal, which was designed by Chicago architects Solomon Cordwell Buenz for M&R Development in partnership with SAS Equities, isn’t that bad. But nor is it a particularly compelling work of architecture. It looks, like many a project that has gone through an extensive public review process, as though it were trying very hard not to offend anyone. While its broad outlines are good enough to merit approval from the Chicago Plan Commission next month, it still needs considerable l tweaking before it’s in sync with the vibrant, chock-a-block streetscape of Wrigleyville.

If nothing else, the plan has come a long way since 2008, when the developers floated a plan for two towers (left) that would have loomed menacingly over the ballpark. Part of Wrigley’s glory is that it rises like a cathedral above its namesake neighborhood — its grand scale, curving contours and exposed steel frame majestically differentiating it from the humble brick three-flats and commercial buildings that huddle around it.

The 2008 design would have destroyed that relationship. The new version (below) does a better job of respecting the ballpark’s visual preeminence.

It calls for a low-slung, V-shaped structure that would front on both Addison and Clark, wrapping around a sports merchandise shop (below) and an auto repair business that refuse to budge. A two-story retail podium would adhere to the neighborhood’s prevailing scale. Atop this base would sit 135 rental apartments and a 137-room hotel. The complex would be faced in brick and glass — with no Victorian frou-frou or other nostalgic nods to the past. Solomon Cordwell Buenz’ president, John Lahey, who lives a few blocks north of Wrigley, says the aim was instead “a contemporary building with texture and scale that made it fit into the neighborhood.”

The scale, at least, is right, which helps explain why Lake View Ald. Tom Tunney, 44th, has given the project his blessing. By reducing the proposed design’s height, breaking up its mass, and stressing ground-hugging horizontal lines instead of soaring vertical ones, the architects have done much to make this big building palatable. They have also made it street-friendly and transit-oriented, two qualities rarely associated with suburban malls.

The project’s ground-level stores would be entered directly from the sidewalk, not through an atrium or internal corridors. Its exterior walls would frame a walkable, pedestrian-oriented cityscape, including widened sidewalks. Its 399 parking spaces would even be shoved underground (at considerable cost to the developer). Indeed, by putting the apartments near the Addison elevated station, the plan will encourage residents to use energy-saving mass transit. Green roofs will further boost the project’s drive to attain LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification from the U.S. Green Building Council.

But there are problems, beginning with the long, visually anemic expanses of brick (left) that the project would foist on Clark and Addison. That prospect is alarming when contrasted with the delightful eclecticism (here a Victorian grace note, there some Art Deco) of the buildings that now occupy the 3500 block of North Clark Street. They would be destroyed to make way for Addison Park on Clark — not a happy trade-off. Even Lahey acknowledges that the architects don’t have the street-level facades right yet. His firm is working on alternatives, though it is not ready to make them public.

Memo to the architects: Give us something other than a banal, blank canvas for retail shops. Right now, the building’s bland base is mall-like even if it isn’t technically a mall.

Problem No. 2: Despite the sensible overall reduction in height, Addison Park on Clark still threatens to upstage Wrigley Field in one sensitive location. Along Addison (left), the complex’s apartments would be set back by just 15 feet, forming a cliff-like wall that would look down on the lowest tier of the ballpark’s wedding-cake-style roofline.

A bigger setback is called for, even if that means making the project taller in mid-block.

Problem No. 3: Addison Park on Clark could have a debilitating impact on Wrigleyville’s city-enlivening mix of uses.

The developers oversimplify when they claim that the project’s site is underutilized. That may be true on Addison, with its ugly surface parking lots and scruffy storefonts (left), but it’s false on Clark, where the row of older buildings harbors a lively collection of locally owned bars, restaurants and the iO Theater.

So it is wrong to dismiss the criticism, voiced by the iO Theater’s owner director Charna Halpern, that Addison Park on Clark would undercut the area’s hip vitality by replacing existing tenants with generic, could-be-anywhere businesses like a Best Buy store.

Locally owned enterprises like the iO Theater are assets, not obstacles, to retaining that vitality. Anything Tunney can do to help them remain on the site after construction (or, at least, in the neighborhood) would be welcome.

Neighborhoods invariably change. The issue here is how Chicago manages that change. The architects and developers deserve credit for the modifications they’ve already made. But they still need to raise the level of their game if they want to avoid sticking Wrigleyville and Wrigley Field with a design that gets only halfway to true urbanity.

(Chicago Tribune photos by Scott Strazzante)

Posted at 12:01:00 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I find that these buildings will ruin the neighborhood feel of Wrigleyville. I think it is a disgrace to tear down the old buildings which have character and replace it with this. Wrigley Field is all about the Old American Baseball field and tradition in America, If this is built, the adjacencies of the new vs old will ruin this juxtaposition and if at this point we are willing to rid the neighborhood of its original feel, whats next, Wrigley Field itself???

Blair -- Thanks for bringing some reason to this conversation! I live in the neighborhood and I agree the "mall" hysteria is totally unfounded, though I'd also be sad if the businesses on Clark didn't stay in the area. This project has indeed come a long way and won a good deal of community support at neighborhood meetings. The old plan not only had tall towers, but also a street-life-killing above-ground parking garage and even more bland architecture. Considering the street-friendly design they've now presented and the transit-oriented nature of the project, this is now a change I'd welcome to the neighborhood -- though I agree I'd like to see it do better than be just good enough. I wish the architects would look around the corner to the Whole Foods/Center on Halsted building for some hints on how to break up a massive facade. I'd love to see some of the different uses of the building called out a little more in the design, distinguishing the hotel from the retail from the residential.

I think you are making it seem that putting the 399-space parking garage underground was such a difficult concession the developer made. It wasn't - it's what's absolutely necessary because there is no other place to put it. If you put it above ground, then the building would be taller which the alderman and people who attended the community meetings didn't want. I think that 399 spaces is a little extreme for something so "transit oriented."

The developer didn't design a transit-oriented place - ANYTHING you put near an extremely well-traveled train station and intersection with multiple bus lines is transit-oriented.

I think you are making it seem that putting the 399-space parking garage underground was such a difficult concession the developer made. It wasn't - it's what's absolutely necessary because there is no other place to put it. If you put it above ground, then the building would be taller which the alderman and people who attended the community meetings didn't want. I think that 399 spaces is a little extreme for something so "transit oriented."

The developer didn't design a transit-oriented place - ANYTHING you put near an extremely well-traveled train station and intersection with multiple bus lines is transit-oriented.

This looks just like the bland, suburban-style buildings plunked down near the Loyola Avenue and Granville Red Line stops. These kinds of buildings belong in the suburbs, not here.

They are considered mall-like because they homogenize everything. Their unimaginative facades, materials, and proportions subtly but effectively diminish intuitive acceptance of stylistic, cultural, and historical nuance that makes blocks of storefronts with all their different aesthetic quirks fun and interesting. Such individuality amongst storefronts lends whole blocks greater overall character. Buildings like this want to consolidate, so everything appears to be "one-stop shopping" aka "a mall".

Take a walk through this neighborhood. Notice how many great houses and apartment buildings are gone, replaced with those horribly 'burbish three-flat condos with the reddish brick street facade and cinder block-type backs. The neighborhood lost a lot of character thanks to the "vision" of the developers of those off-the-shelf snores. The neighborhood will lose even more of the last remaining bits of architectural originality and grit that remind people (i.e. tourists and suburban visitors who see this neighborhood as little more than a movie set surrounding Wrigley) that they are actually still in a real city thanks to this bland, bland building project.

Mr. Kamin,
Who paid you to write this article? Another example of the Trib selling out the values of true journalism. No mention of the traffic snarl that is certain to result from putting in the big-box merchandiser (Best Buy). Shameless pandering to the desires of the developer. No mention of Tunney's spineless endorsement of this project, despite the legitimate concerns of neighborhood groups.

You've done the neighborhood a dis-service, which I suppose isn't surprising since you clearly aren't familiar with the area and most likeley just read any press release you could get your hands on in order to write your tripe.

BK: Wrong. I'm very familiar with Wrigleyville and I revisited it before writing this story. I find little that is worth saving on Addison. Clark Street is a different kettle of fish.

This block is going to change. The question is: How should it change? Other commentors have mentioned alternatives, such as the Whole Foods on Halstead, that offer a model for large-scale but neighborhood sensitive redevelopment.

I'd advise you and the other opponents--along with the architects--to check them out.

If you attend any of the community meetings in Lakeview (and maybe most neighborhoods in the city) you will find that the people who attend are like Mikey in the old Life cereal ads. They hate everything. We live in Wrigleyville and we think the proposed project is great. Much better than a lot of the decrepit buildings now there. We can't say that suggestions of CVS and Best Buy really fit the area as anchor stores, but we view the overall project as favorable. Like many in the community we have dropped out of the community organization where only discouraging words seem to be welcome.

-How is building a 399-space car lot encouraging mass transit? Doesn't this just add more congestion? In no way are they providing more space for bus stops or access to mass transit. And by "considerable cost" do you mean they will charge "premium" prices for this new conveniently located parking?

-While you do point out that these are small businesses that will be somehow "relocated" (i.e. to a more out of the way location), I'm surprised that you use the "neighborhoods change" mantra to describe this obviously politically connected project. What about the comparison with similar "shopping collections?" Yes, the one in Lincoln Park, the one in Wicker Park...what did they replace? And did those businesses relocate?

-This is all just passive justification for pretend "green" development which will not really positively affect those in the surrounding neighborhood (remember, 399 space parking lot). With iO on the outs as well there is yet another reason to never step foot in Wrigleyville.

Traffic congestion, anyone? Why would anyone even consider placing a Best Buy at that location???
The alderman has consistently shown his anti-Cubs colors, but this location doesn't even make sense for would-be Best Buy customers...
Finally, it's the character and lasting quality of the varying architecture in the area that has stood the test of time. The city is making a terrible error and being short-sighted if it allows the great buildings on Clark St which house local bars, etc torn down for this generic monstrosity.

What happened to the appeal of unique local character? What's the point of exploring a city if every neighborhood has the same chain stores inside the same cookie-cutter architecture? Do residents just no longer care? Are we so busy that all we want anymore is familiarity and convenience?

I remember when Westfield started buying up local malls, and claimed that their goal was to make sure a shopper at a Westfield in Chicago had the same experience as one in Sydney. To me, that's incredibly depressing.

What ever happened to parcel by parcel development? When did buying the entire block become the only way we can evolve? The lack of variation from individual property owners is where the blandness comes from all over our city.

Are folks aware that one of the business that will be lost here is the Goose Island Wrigleyville Brewpub? Though this is not Goose island's main location, this place has been an important venue for numerous beer-related events and festivals. If this venue is lost, the loss to Chicago's craft beer culture will be enormous. There really is no other place - large enough, craft-beer friendly, and with good transit access - to hold the kinds of events that now take place at Goose Wrigleyville.

And this is not to mention that the building Goose Island is in, is one of those classic, comfortable, stylish older buildings that gives Clark Street its character. The building itself deserves preservation.

pvbella -- "Neighborhoods change because the residents, or new residents want them to change, not because some developer comes in with a wrecking ball. Developments of this type should also be based upon need. It does not appear there is really a need for this type of development in Lakeview."

That first point is spot on, but then you're failing to recognize that this developer is building this based on market demand -- in other words "need." In this economy, you have to make a very strong case for a market in order to move projects forward.

Every city neighborhood is a story of change, and many of the historic blocks and buildings you now love were also once decried by prior residents as horrible change.

I second "Katie Didn't" -- there are plenty of people in Lakeview who are happy with this change. The "party of no" folks need to learn to channel their energy into some sort of positive vision for the neighborhood. Start talking about what you do want instead of always what you don't want. Do you really want to leave this block on Addison exactly as-is with its surface parking lots and strip mall 7-11? And if you don't like this development, what exactly do you want there? Perhaps that's why you're not getting what you want -- all the alderman or anyone else has ever heard is what you don't want.

I live 3 blocks away from this development, and I am all for it. Sure, like Blair said there are aspects of the design which should be revisited. But as a resident of the area I think it would be a great addition to the neighborhood.
People talk about the extra parking spots as if they were a bad thing. Those will come in handy considering a great percentage (99.9%?) of people who come to the area, either for baseball or the bars, are CTA-less tourists and suburbanites. Which leads me to the point some people are trying to make that this development will destroy the local character of the area and its businesses. Let's be honest, the area is characterless for 6 months of the year when the Cubs aren't around. And although I agree the iO Theatre and a couple of other businesses should be given a new space after the completion of the project, I can't wait to get rid of some other establishments that only bring drunk frat boys to the area.
Lastly, as an architect, I do understand the importance of preserving significant buildings. As far as I know, there are no architecturally significant buildings on that site. People, we can't save every building ever built just because it's old. Let's save the best of each era, and allow ourselves to move on!

It's great to see Blair Kamin bring some common sense to this issue. Face it - the entrenched Wrigleyville residents will oppose anything. It's their second nature.

We are never going back to the 1970s. There are lights at Wrigley, there are rooftop skyboxes, there are condos and corporations competing for money. The question then becomes how best to manage that for the benefit not only of the economy generally, but of the neighborhood specifically.

This project is keeping within the scale of the area. It's sensitive to the existing street pattern, has storefront businesses, and is next to the el line. Is it bigger than some other buildings? Sure, but that's no different than the big apartment complexes just down the street. There are some pretty big complexes on Halsted, Clark, Waveland, Addison and other streets, but the point is they open onto the street and they fit into the neighborhood. Look at US Cellular Field if you want an example of "suburban-style" development -- a bland stadium surrounded by parking lots in every direction. This is the antithesis of that.

I agree completely that there should be a place for the iO theater and any other local business that wants to stay, because that diversity of use is what makes these neighborhoods worth having. Perhaps they can also save the streetfront facades. But people shouldn't let their obsession with preserving some fictionalized idea of a Wrigleyville neighborhood kill off its vitality.

If they go ahead with this project they might as well just go ahead and build a new ballpark out in Arlington Heights... it will kill the character of the neighborhood and therefore the charms of Wrigley too, which are invariably intertwined with each other. Not to mention the new traffic issues created by such a high-density development in an area that already has traffic issues.

What a shame, the suburbanization of America is even hitting our urban neighborhoods now.

Seems to me this is not so much about the architecture as what's moving in. And really, you've got a Best Buy just south of Diversey and two Groceries stores as you go east. Anyone living south of Belmont is justified in their anger about a Dominick's/condo project being built at Wrigley and not at the site of the Dominick's that burnt down. (Do you have to have a condo project to build a grocery store in this day and age?)

I could see the need for another hotel in the area, I don't know that it needs to be right there. The Best Buy and the Dominick's across from Wrigley, I'm just scratching my head.

I feel sorry for the Ricketts. They just bought a baseball team and a fuctionally obsolete ballpark and the corrupt local government has and will continue to stand in the way of them trying to make money on their investment. Ticket prices at Wrigley are way overpriced (highest in baseball) and the hassel of getting to the stadium is seldom disscussed. Many fans don't like the neighborhood and instead go to Cubs games at Miller Park which pumps money into Milwaukee's economy. Why do you think the Brewers switched leagues to the NL central? If people are going to continue to complain about these improvements (including Toyota signs) the Ricketts should build a stadium off the interstate in the burbs so they can do whatever the hell they want and the government and preservationists can go eff themselves. It is the Ricketts team, not the governments, not fans, and not the people that live in Wrigleyville. If people don't like it, become a Sox fan.

"Homogenize" is an apt word to use in assessing these plans. I am COMPLETELY FOR wrecking some of the decrepit and and ugly buildings to the South and West of Wrigley, but the plans just look so uninteresting.

It is heartbreaking that the developers are missing a great opportunity to create something stylistically bold that could add another signature to this great neighborhood.

LET the owners build whatever they want then watch the project go into bankruptcy soon due to high rental rates and vacancy. When rates drop the new businesses will sign long term leases and the process will start all over again in 2050. By that time the cubs will be close contender after 150 years of not winning a world series.

"BK: Matty, please read the whole story and you'll see that I referred to--and lamented--the prospective destruction of the older buildings on Clark St."

Sure sure, you pointed out flaws in the planned development - but you also quite dismissively told opponents to "chill"

If opponents were to take your advice and just sit back without voicing our very valid concerns, do you really believe any of those flaws would ever be addressed?

Right. We MUST be vocal in our objection to this poorly planned project. So please do not tell us to "chill"

BK: You should indeed be vocal. The project has flaws and they should be corrected. But you should also keep your critique in perspective and not overstate it. Otherwise, you lose credibility. That's what I mean by "chill."

The Clark/Addison intersection is hardly architecturally pleasing. The entire area surrounding the ball park is full of ugly and underutilized surface parking lots- The McDonald's, Taco Bell, etc. This neighborhood is a sh-thole and everyone acts as though this development is an affront to their delicate sensibilities and is destroying a pristine example of Chicago architecture, culture and urbanity. Give me a break while I dodge the morons vomiting in your amazing neighborhood.

It is interesting that those most critical of Mr. Kamin are those that don't respond to or seem to understand the arguments he put forth. Instead, they opt for name calling (sell out!) or emotional reactions.

To BK: I don't agree with everything you said, but I respect that you are taking an even-handed approach to the development and analyzing what you see to be the pros and cons. To everyone else, listen to the single most relevant word in BK's review: chill. Oppose the development if you really dislike it so much, but do so with respect and valid reasons. By lashing out as many of you have in this thread, you undercut your own (often valid) arguments.

Or to put it another way, who are you more likely to listen to: the guy that will oppose you no matter what you say or the guy that seems to be holding a conversation with you in good faith?

In response to the comments criticizing the parking, I'd agree 399 spaces is too much parking, but sadly that's actually less than would normally be required under Chicago zoning. I believe the developer is actually taking advantage of the transit-oriented parking reduction allowed under Chicago zoning code. And it's worth noting that there's probably around 300 parking spaces in the surface lots currently on that property for not very much square footage of real uses. Meaning the parking ratio for the block after it's redeveloped will be *way* lower than what's there now, which is a good shift toward being more transit-oriented.

As far as traffic, I don't think that matters so much as long as we're not rearranging the neighborhood to accommodate it with wider streets and by replacing businesses and housing with parking lots (like what happened to this property in past decades). For one, if people don't like the traffic, then maybe they won't drive here -- great! And remember that saying, "nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded." In urban places, the traffic is actually an indicator of success.

While I'm not against development at this site, its overall plan seems to lack vision and logic. I'm all for redeveloping the 7-11, Starbucks, sports gear shops and the auto repair shop which could be located anywhere and has defiantly over stayed its welcome on Addison. However, this has to be the worst location for a large retail store like a Best Buy or a grocery store. The area is already one of the most car and pedestrian congested intersections in the entire city. So now we want to attract several thousand more persons into this area? Imagine the traffic nightmare before/during/after an ongoing game? Plus I have a hard time calling this project with a hotel transit friendly when they are adding 400 additional parking spaces. As the saying goes, if you build it they will come. Well 400 parking spaces will only encourage 400 additional cars to be on the road in Lakeview rather than a person walking 3 or 4 blocks to shop.

I would feel much better about this project as Blair mentioned, if the architecture was more inline with the neighborhood. I would be willing to support a taller set back design if it allowed the existing distinct buildings and businesses South of Bar Louie to survive. I would be more willing to support this project if it embraced a more transit friendly business model, which means more boutiques, restaurant/bar, gift shops and small locale businesses. A mid sized hotel isn’t that bad of an idea for this location however, large retail does not belong in this area of Lakeview.

Mr Kamin, you have failed to grasp the main reason behind the protest. This project would displace many local business owners in a time when the community and Alderman should be supporting them.

It's no simple feat to to relocate a theater. A new location would have to be found. The cost of building out the interior would be prohibitive. Where are these owners supposed to get all the extra money it would take to do this? Last time I looked, the economy was not doing too hot. This is absolutely the wrong time for this project, if that were the only issue.

In particular, my concern is for the iO Theater. At the rental rates quoted, there's simply no way that iO could afford to move to another location, then move back into its current location when the project is complete. iO Theater is an important part of Chicago's past and current entertainment culture. Displacing a place like that for a CVS is simply gross.

This new building may not technically be a "mall" but the homogenization of a unique part of Chicago shoud be fought, not embraced.

BK: It sounds like you didn't read the story. I said that Ald. Tunney should do everything possible to help business like the iO either remain in place or stay in the neighborhood. I said they were vital parts to retaining the area's vitality, not obstacles.

I'll join the crowd of "I live in the neighborhood so my opinion counts more!" This sucks! We don't need more parking spaces encouraging more traffic in the area. We don't need taller buildings that don't fit into the well-established look and feel of the neighborhood.

The article points out that the great thing about Wrigley is how it rises up amongst the shorter buildings around it. Well, if you build something more than 3 stories tall across the street you lose that, even if the taller part of the building is set back.

We don't need more big shopping centers that require a big chain retailer to anchor them. What happens when the economy turns and the big store leaves? Then we have a huge empty, ugly building. Look at the 3 story shopping center at Clark & Halsted for an example. Bed, Bath and Beyond moved out and now there's nothing there. Look at block 37 downtown. They've been trying to get a big anchor store there for years and the one they finally got backed out when the economy went sour.

For all those claiming this project is "suburbanization" are very wrong. This project is increasing the density of the area and creating more of a street presence which are very urbanist ideals. Just because the design is a little bland doesn't mean the project is bad conceptually. Just because the existing buildings are old don't mean they are nice or important.

Whether it be a mall, hotel, or superhero headquarters, it's still asinine that a sizable portion of Wrigleyville is getting torn down.

For one, there are a lot of businesses that have remained there for many years. There are jobs and there is a history and neighborhood feel that comes from a lot of those places. For me, more than anything, it's Goose Island.

Another is that Wrigleyville unto itself is a bar neighborhood, especially one that celebrates the Chicago Cubs. It makes perfect sense that mobs of fans who leave the ball game walk to a nearby bar to celebrate or commiserate over the Cubs' recent victories and losses.

But even in spite of having a place to drink after a ball game, the fact that this is a party neighborhood with lots of bars makes the neighborhood what it is, and it's not necessarily a bad place. Chicago has a myriad of hotels, shopping centers, and upscale friendly neighborhoods; it's running out of neighborhoods for fun. Part of the thrill of living in Chicago is just going to a neighborhood with no set plan and checking out the numerous bars and performing venues that line the streets of that area.

And let's not forget how much taxi drivers depend on the business of taking people home after the bars close. Yeah, it gets crowded, but if that bothers you then you're not in the right part of town.

If ANYTHING needs to be built in Wrigleyville, it's a multi-storied parking garage that's walking distance to the ball park, but it should NOT be built by tearing down any of the businesses on Clark from the corner of Addison south to the Irish Oak.

I get so disgusted with this city when so many old time favorites like Demon Dogs on Fullerton, Marshall Fields, the Fireside Bowl, and I'm starting to forget what else--are removed for the interests of business and family and business-related gentrification.

Bottom line: most people aren't upset because of what's going to be built in Wrigleyville; they're upset because building first requires tearing down what's already there.

I live just a few blocks south of Wrigley and I am 100% against this project. Do not say I am against redevelopment, I'm not. Just not like this. There is a great opportunity to do something amazing here and this is the best they could do? Wait, no this is not the best they could do, this is what they are willing to spend. It's all about money $$$ and how much the developers will make. How can anybody say that this will not further add traffic when there are 400 parking spaces being built? Tom Tunney, really? You should be ashamed of yourself. You have signed off on a project that does not even have final plans yet. Very telling. I have only lived here for two years but absolutely cannot wait for Mr. Tunney to come up for re-election. I won't be voting for you!!

Organs -- If there's anything Wrigleyville DOESN'T need, it's a multi-story parking garage. Far too many businesses have been torn down in Lakeview and elsewhere to make way for parking. Just look at the block across from Wrigley -- what was once a vibrant urban block is now surface parking and 7-11 surrounded by more parking, the result of past decades' suburbanization. If you think it's ok to drive into our neighborhood to get drunk, then you're in the wrong part of town. Take the train or a cab, even if you're not getting drunk.

The new development will create more business space for the kinds of bars you think make the neighborhood. And the hotel will be an even better substitute for a parking garage or cab ride, giving fans a place to sleep within stumbling distance from the field so they don't need to drive through the neighborhood and cause more traffic around game time. And the hotel and additional retail space will bring more jobs to the neighborhood.

They don't have the street level facades right yet because they were an afterthought.. a product of corporate architects working with a developer to squeeze as much square footage of money making space on the land as they were able. I doubt the starting point of the design involved any abstract or non-specific drawings that primarily emphasized the design of the street facades and how they would communicate with the users. If they had they wouldn't be hired by this developer. That's why the design looks like extruded floor plans. I also doubt extensive public review is what compromised the design.

You're spot on saying this site isn't 'underutilized' in general terms, but I don't think the developer thinks so either. Its just easier and more cost effective to wipe the whole thing out and start from scratch. and the way to get eclecticism is to not have one architect and one developer do a job this size in one fell swoop (oh, excuse me, a separate architect will probably manage the construction adding to the inevitable cheap and devalued output) but sadly this is exactly what's happening. This is especially a shame because there are so many capable, creative, and dedicated architects that can't find work. And certainly the notion of wanting to embellish the existing, fill in the holes, and take an overall approach of humbly adding to the existing strengths of the urban fabric is conducive to involving multiple creative teams.. and then ending up with eclectic, varied, and ultimately exciting design. But try telling that to a developer.

And if indeed as the article states they are striving for LEED certification I guess neither the architect or developer is gonna lose sleep over the hypocrisy of destroying perfectly good buildings (yes, they are perfectly good) while stupidly grinning and having a warm fuzzy feeling thinking they're green because they met the minimum quota set forth by a somewhat suspect organization. Oh, but bonus LEED points for collection, treatment, and recycling of all the game-day urine on the sidewalk to irrigate the green roofs.

But all that being said I'd still love to see a successful, unique, and appropriate revitalization of the areas around Wrigley that are lacking, even if it is retail, even if it is a Best Buy or grocery store.

We can't walk to our cars parked 2 doors down without fearing we'll get shot-day or night. Get off your high horse. Your tunnel vision is disgusting. We can only WISH that we could get some new big-name stores in Englewood, bring money and jobs to the area. Shame on yall, you got it so well and listen to yourselves. get over yourselves. No stores like that are going to move anywhere around here. believe me, we got nothing!!!

The wrong buildings are going to be demolished for this "mall" (no other way to describe it). It IS a mall since it is self contained with a parking garage for CARS. FOr the Trib architectural critic not to recognize that it is a MALL looking back at his past articles is NOT surprising. The actual buildings that house Goose Island define Clark Street. Without them This area will look worst than what the "neighborhood" around the U.S, Cellular. As far as the neighborhood is dead outside of Cubs games can't be further from the truth. Maybe as a Sox fan I can appreciate Clark Street more when there is no baseball. The Goose Island building can not be replaced. The architect who signed in above needs his license revoked. Put the mall where the McDonald's (parking lot) is! Or better yet put a couple of small one or two story buildings where the gaps are on Addison. No more parking so there is no more cars. Dump Tunney! Boycott Ann!! Better yet smear their buns on their stores!!! Have a 312 or two!!!

The wrong buildings are going to be demolished for this "mall" (no other way to describe it). It IS a mall since it is self contained with a parking garage for CARS. FOr the Trib architectural critic not to recognize that it is a MALL looking back at his past articles is NOT surprising. The actual buildings that house Goose Island and the other bars define Clark Street. Without them Wrigleyville will look worst than the "neighborhood" around the U.S, Cellular. As far as the neighborhood is dead outside of Cubs games can't be further from the truth. Maybe as a Sox fan I can appreciate Clark Street more when there is no baseball. The Goose Island building can not be replaced. The architect who signed in above needs his license revoked. Put the mall where the McDonald's (parking lot) is! Or better yet put a couple of small one or two story buildings where the gaps are on Addison. No more parking so there is no more cars. Dump Tunney! Boycott Ann!! Better yet smear their buns on their stores!!! Have a 312 or two!!!

Kudos to Organs, that is right on! And clueless to BK for completely missing the mark again. He will complain about some buildings that no one is using at the former Michael Reese but not care about buildings that ARE useful and people love. I guess buildings are just more important than people.

The idea of upgrading the neighborhood there is good ,but that high rise would look out of place,It sounds like that aldermen tonnie is in that developers pocket in this case again he needs a retirement fund

This development looks an awful lot like one of the condo developments next to the Glen Ellyn train station.

Now, I live in Glen Ellyn, and like it very much, but seriously, do you want a development next to Wrigley Field to look like a suburban development, or do you want it to enhance the existing uniqueness of the Clark and Addison neighborhood?

I think the roof top open bars look terrible. I'd like to return to the 1984 look but the times change.

While some would call North Clark south of Addison vital, it's mainly a bunch of bars strung together. Second in size to the largest bar in the country, Wrigley Field.

Yes, there are the Five Star restaurants, Salt N Pepper and Goose Island, and the architectually significant io Theatre building.

Developing this site and the McDonald's site and the Cubs Triangular Building are a natural evolution. Setbacks are more important that height. There is nothing wrong with more height and looking down on Wrigley from the West and the South.

This is a city, density needs to increase.

If you want to look at trashy, try the Captain Morgan Club, another outdoor bar, and the crappy looking cheap bricks the Tribune sold and use as pavers.

I don't understand how Tunney can be outraged with the left field Toyota sign as it would ruin the neighborhood's character while he openly backs this project which will raze an entire block and replace it with the expressionless, light-brown brick facade buildings which are already replacing some of the classic structures in the neighborhood.

I'm not even a Cubs fan and I think this project is stupid! iO Theatre and Goose Island are Chicago staples and now it looks like they are going to be replaced by a Staples!

Good article. I agree, the facades are terribly bland. The architects should use the Whole Foods on nearby Halsted as an example of retaining the vintage look of the neighborhood.

Also how much more "wider" are these sidewalks going to be??? I looked at the developer's drawing and it didn't appear to be any wider. The sidewalks are way too narrow especially for the drunks to safely navigate.

There is absolutely no justification for the retail names mentioned (CVS, Best Buy, Dominick's and Apple Store) moving in to this part of Wrigleyville. Contrary to BK's assertion that this is not a mall, these are exactly the names you do see at a suburban mall. Whatever critics may say, this really is suburban-style homogenization.

There should be no encouragement to further car congestion, so let's forget a 400 space parking lot, even if it is underground (hey, why not put streets underground for car lanes, Lower Wacker-style, and leave the surface streets to pedestrians and bikes? - I'm only half-kidding...)

The rental apartments should have no car parking spaces at all, and tenants should commit to not being car owners. The underground parking lot space should instead be committed to the provision of secure bike parking for those apartments.

For stuff where a car is unavoidably necessary (going to Best Buy in Lincoln Park, anyone? You have a choice of two....!), get a car rental company in.

Parking spaces for the hotel should be expensively priced separate from the room charge in order to discourage yet more car traffic.

A cab rank should be a part of this somewhere.

Finally, bravo to the auto repair shop and the sports goods store for holding out. It's such a shame that long established tenant businesses who have built themselves up over a long period have zero say in new developments. It is horrible to see these businesses at the mercy of a landlord's greed.

BK: An apartment building and hotel complex in Chicago with no parking spaces? What planet do you live on?

Your facile denunciation of all the store brands is also off the mark. Apple, in particular, is synonymous with sophisticated urban and interior design. Just look at what they've done on Michigan Avenue and in New York City.

Excellent summary of this proposed development in Wrigleyville, and for highlighting the radical NIMBY culture that is prevalent in some parts of the city!

I hope the Chicago city council is paying close attention to this project and that Alderman Tunney, small business owners, and the developer can reach a consensus so they can break ground soon. Those who simply cry "NIMBY" and propose no other alternatives, don't have the city's best interests at stake. Those naysayers to Addison Park on Clark are those very same people who opposed lights in Wrigley Field and who oppose the Last Four Miles lakefront development plan in Rogers Park, Edgewater, and South Shore, as well as the Pullman Park mixed-use development plan (at the abandoned Ryerson Steel Mill) in the Chatham neighborhood of Chicago.

All of these areas are economically depressed neighborhoods which would directly benefit from either the revitalization that would result from new bike paths/beaches/parklands and completion of Chicago's Lakefront and/or the creation of much needed new affordable housing and retail developments in neighborhoods such as South Shore and Chatham. All of these plans are worthy of approval from Chicago's City Council.

***Click here: A video about the Last Four Miles

***Click here: A new Wal-Mart Super Center – complete with grocery store – on the Far South Side

Addison Park on Clark in Wrigleyville (if done right) will be a significant improvement to what exists there now and I hope proponents succeed in getting this passed. Not all CHANGE is bad, people!

You lunatics complain of property taxes, but then don't have any solutions to bring new businesses that create revenue for the city. By the way Paolo, they're already building your "glorified Best Buy" Apple store at the corner of Halsted and Clybourn and I can only go to the Improv Olympics so many fricken times a year!

The last picture of Addison as it looks now says it all. It is an ugly jumble of decreptit old buildings and uglier advertising signs an looks totally awful. THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WANT TO PRESERVE?

OK people, if you want the Wrigley hood to not change, can we at least bring back the Sahara Coal Yard, where they want to build the triangle building?
They had a nice wood fence around the place.
And bring back the Milwaukee Road grade crossing while they're at it!

But on a serious note, I can't imagine how much the owner of the Sport's World store must want that they couldn't buy out that mess & fix up a disaster of a corner!

Hi! I'm a performer at iO, and one of the people that helped gather neighborhood support against the project. On May 9th, Alderman Tunney decided to support the project, bringing the residents of Wrigley to notice this project has some legs. Saying "chill" seems passive-aggressive at the very least, and condescending. Even as ONLY a Wrigleyville resident, I can say my friends and neighbors directly by me (including the merchants on the west side of the street) are not in support of the idea.

Before you go writing articles, may I give YOU some "friendly" advice: the title of this group was taken FROM the media, not created by us. It is from a news article over 6 months back, and loosely based on the book THE MALLING OF AMERICA, used as text in sociology courses across the nation collegiately. Hope this helps! Whatever happens, I hope it is what is best for the neighborhood, it's residents, sports fans and those with some hometown pride.

BK: Thanks for the friendly advice, and I hope you and the others at iO noted that I advocated for Ald. Tunney to do whatever he can to keep the theater in the 3500 block of North Clark or in the neighborhood.

As to your other points: It was the leaders of the Facebook group who decided to adop the name. Don't blame it on "the media." Besides, the book is largely about suburban malls. See below:

The Facebook group cleverly tried to adapt the book to their own purposes--it's obviously a great rallying cry. Nevertheless, as I pointed out in my analysis, this facile analogy doesn't hold up well when subjected to scrutiny.

Please forgive me if the word "chill" sounded condescending. It wasn't meant to be. I simply wanted to suggest that people be a tad more dispassionate about analying the pros and cons of this plan.

All good suggestions, but you cannot easily overcome the impact that such a large development - all bright and shiny and new- will have on the fabric of the neighborhood. The materials palette should be as close to what exists as possible - that orange brick has got to go! The commercial storefronts' facade should vary across the entire street edge to evoke the organic process that created the area. This development is establishing the future of Wrigleyville and should be carefully advanced to ensure that at a minimum, the essential quality of the neighborhood isn't completely lost.

BK: Thanks. Good comment. There's no doubt that replacing several small buildings with one large one threatens the scale and character of Wrigleyville. The existing buildings reflect the work of many hands. They exhibit many styles. And they reflect several periods of time. They are, as you say, "organic."

Attempting to re-create such variety in a new project is very risky. The effect could well be Disneyesque--a stage set, as other commentors have noted in their hilarious photos on the faux urban storefronts that were pasted onto suburban big-box retailers. But this doesn't necessarily have to be the outcome.

A few years back, Chicago architect Joe Valerio successfully created an architecturally-varied block across the street from Wisconsin's state capitol. He effectively mixed scales and materials to respect the traditional urbanism of the blocks surrounding the capitol. But he did so in a contemporary vein. Here's a link to a story about this development:

The project even includes a Walgreen's, one of those supposedly generic tenants that will destroy a neighborhood's character. This project shows otherwise: When it comes to urban architecture, tenants are not destiny.

Another possible strategy is to ditch attempts to manufacture small-scale, organic growth and to acknowledge the bigness of Addison Park on Clark. If this strategy is followed, some architectural models could be nearby warehouses, with their muscular, cellular organization and intricate brickwork. Even Wrigley's outfield walls, with their corbeled brickwork, offer a model.

Clearly, the architects have to do better. Adding a few fussy details won't work. They need a strong idea--A CONCEPT--on which to base a redesign. I urge them to think before they draw. The lack of a strong idea in the present plan is its greatest underlying fault.

These types of really ugly strutures are being built throughout the country....Must be the most cost effective way to develop a partial block in a city.....In other news, I live here in Cincinnati....Go Reds! btw, anyways, you people in Chicago need to chill. We are adding 8 city blocks to our downtown right now and the whole project is being built out of the same bricks and same style as this building you guys have going up in Wrigleyville.....my point is based on comparison, you guys have what looks like half a block going up we have 8 whole blocks of this blah real estate going up......we suck more, so get over it!

The project still does not make any sense in light of the fact that there is a very large, almost vacant lot (the McDonald's) on the opposite corner of where they intend to build. Why tear down viable businesses when there is space available across the street? Why not add to the businesses already there, rather than replace them?

By the way, the structure itself reminds me of many of the business store front strips along the Clybourn corridor- bland and not particularly pedestrian friendly. Not at all fitting with the character of the neighborhood.

I think the problem is that a lot of small storefronts would be replaced by a small number of very large stores -- drugstore, grocery store, etc. Nothing kills a pedestrian streetscape worse than one big store every 200 feet, with no interest in the windows (will there be big supermarket-style paper ads filling the windows?) any more than in the brick walls themselves.

From a design standpoint the loss of symmetry on the 3500 block of Clark is also a concern.

BK: Martin, many thanks for that point. I agree, but some of the existing businesses--Red Ivy, for example--take up large swaths of the property along the sidewalk. It's not just small shopkeepers up there. The question is: How, with larger-scale businesses coming in, do you maintain a lively, pedestrian-oriented streetscape? Is that mission impossible?